We welcome article submissions from experts in the areas of coal, mining,
shipping, etc.
To Submit your article please click here.
|
|
|
Saturday, 12 April 14
HOW DO YOU CALCULATE LOSS OF EARNINGS FOLLOWING A COLLISION? - INCE & CO
 KNOWLEDGE TO ELEVATE
The recent case of Astipalaia vs Hanjin Shenzhen [2014] EWHC 120 (Admlty) has revisited the existing case law on assessment of damages following a collision and provided further clarification as to the appropriate test to be applied. On 26 March 2008 there was a collision between the fully laden VLCC tanker Astipalaia and the container ship Hanjin Shenzhen in the approaches to Singapore where Astipalaia was due to discharge. As a result of the collision, Astipalaia suffered damage to her hull, guard rails and mooring chock. Astipalaia was able to proceed into Singapore to discharge her cargo.
The background facts
At the time of the collision, Astipalaia was trading in the VLCC spot market which in early-mid 2008 was particularly buoyant and the vessel was acceptable throughout the industry to oil majors and other first class charterers. However, Astipalaia was unfixed for her next employment at the time of the collision.
As a result of the incident, the vessel’s oil major approvals were temporarily placed on “technical hold” by the majors pending the usual investigation into the collision. Astipalaia was also required by class to undertake permanent repairs before any further employment.
Astipalaia sailed from Singapore to Dubai in ballast and entered dry dock for permanent repairs which lasted around 10 days. On exiting dry dock, Astipalaia was still unable to resume trading on the VLCC spot market as the “technical hold” had not then been lifted. In the absence of oil major approvals, Astipalaia was fixed to NITC to be employed as floating storage off Kharg Island, Iran on a 60 day period charter, during which time the “technical holds” were dealt with and lifted. She completed the NITC fixture and was redelivered at Fujairah on 29 June 2008 after which she resumed her normal pattern of spot trading.
Accordingly, despite the time in dry dock only lasting some 10 days, Astipalaia was effectively unavailable for her primary trading market for the entire period from 26 March 2008 to 29 June 2008. Astipalaia brought a claim for loss of profits based on what the vessel would have earned had she traded on the normal VLCC spot market during that period, giving credit for the mitigation earnings obtained while on charter as floating storage to NITC. The total amount claimed by Astipalaia was approximately US$5,640,000 lost income during that period.
The Reference to the Registrar
Following agreement on liability, the quantum of Astipalaia’s claim was disputed and referred for determination by the Admiralty Registrar. The Court had to consider how to calculate loss of earnings of Astipalaia in circumstances where (1) the vessel did not have a specific next fixture concluded at the time of the collision such that there was no certainty as to what the vessel would have earned next, but for the collision, and (2) the vessel’s oil major approvals had been placed on “technical hold” and were not reinstated until the end of a less lucrative storage fixture.
Astipalaia’s position
Astipalaia’s Owners contended that damages should be assessed on the basis that the best evidence of Astipalaia’s potential earnings, but for the collision, were that Astipalaia would either (i) have been fixed to Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) with whom they had been negotiating for a West Africa-East Coast India fixture at the time of the collision, after which Astipalaia would have resumed a ‘typical’ spot trading pattern of a round voyage from Arabian Gulf (AG) to the Far East, or (ii) had Owners not secured the IOC fixture, the vessel would have undertaken two AG-Far East round voyages. Under either alternative, these two hypothetical voyages would have been completed within roughly the same period of time as the detention period, i.e. by 29 June 2008, such that a reasonable comparison could be drawn between what the vessel could have earned during that period, with what she did in fact earn.
Astipalaia’s Owners relied on the “time equalisation method” set out in The Vicky 1 [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 45, which they argued supported their approach of comparing what the vessel would probably have earned but for the collision with what she did in fact earn in the same period. The hypothetical voyage schedule advocated by the Astipalaia’s Owners and prepared by their expert sought to provide comparable fixtures she could (but not necessarily would) have performed in the detention period in order to place a value on the vessel’s lost earnings. On that basis Astipalaia claimed damages of approximately US$5,640,000.
Hanjin Shenzhen’s position
In the Vicky 1, the claimant tanker owners had lost an actual fixture. Hanjin Shenzhen’s Owners argued that the principles from Vicky 1 only applied if the claimant ship owner had lost a secured fixture, not where there was no definite next business secured.
Their primary case was that the loss period should be split into two distinct periods: (i) the period during which the vessel was completely out of service, when repairs were being completed; and (ii) the period during which she performed the floating storage charter. On that basis, Hanjin Shenzhen argued that whilst they were liable in damages for lost income for approximately US$800,000 for period (i) during the dry docking, by the time of the floating storage charter being entered into after dry docking the spot market had in fact fallen such that no damages were recoverable for period (ii) as the rates achieved under the floating storage business successfully mitigated Astipalaia’s loss.
Hanjin Shenzhen interests also opposed the “time equalisation method” of seeking to model hypothetical voyages on the basis that it was too speculative to seek to calculate when the vessel might have been back in the AG after the first hypothetical voyage, and what the spot rate might have been at that time for the second hypothetical voyage.
During proceedings it was accepted by both experts that VLCCs operate in a well-defined and straightforward trading pattern. The largest loading area (around 72% of all VLCC cargoes) is the AG followed by West Africa, with a limited number of cargoes loading in the Caribbean or North Sea/Mediterranean. The Registrar accepted this evidence, and further evidence that of the 72% of cargoes lifted from the AG, around 70% of those cargoes are for Far East discharge. Accordingly, it could be established on the balance of probabilities what sort of business the vessel most likely would/could have achieved during the total detention period.
The Admiralty Court decision
The Registrar considered and analysed various leading cases, including The Argentino (1888) 13 PD 191 (C/A), 14 App Cas 519 (H/L), The Soya [1956] 1 WLR 714 (C/A) and The Vicky 1 [2008] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 45 (C/A).
Having done so, the Registrar accepted Astipalaia’s approach to assessing damages. The court upheld Astipalaia’s argument that the detention period should include not only the repair period but also the additional period the vessel needed to obtain reinstatement of oil major approvals before returning to her normal employment, and that this detention period should be taken as a single period finishing on 29 June 2008, not broken into two parts. The arguments on behalf of Hanjin Shenzhen that there were principles of law curtailing or precluding such an assessment were rejected.
On the basis of the expert evidence before him, the Registrar assessed damages in the total sum of approximately US$ 4,960,000 (a loss of earnings of US$ 9,860,000 less US$ 4,900,000) earned during the floating storage contract.
Comment
This Judgment confirms that an owner can claim damages not just for the immediate loss of use of the vessel during the period of repairs but also for further knock-on effects to the vessel’s ability to return to normal trading, provided of course that such knock-on effects are not too remote or unforeseeable and that the loss can be proven by evidence.
The Judgment also confirms that there is no set rule as to the recoverability of damages for loss of use, and that such recovery is not dependent on proof of a specific lost fixture, nor (if such a fixture is established) that damages are limited to that one fixture but no more.
While there is no set methodology for calculating loss of profits, the methodologies used in earlier cases may be adapted to suit the facts of each case. The principles applied in this case were ultimately the same as those applied in The Vicky 1 and can be said to represent a recognised and well principled approach to modelling a vessel’s likely earnings over a given period which properly takes into account the relevant market position as at the time the hypothetical voyages would have been fixed.
It should be noted, however, that proving one’s loss may be more difficult in other trades. The VLCC trade is sufficiently well established and ‘predictable’, with enough data published, to allow a meaningful expert analysis of what the vessel could have earned. It would be more difficult to undertake the same exercise for ships with a more varied and unpredictable trading pattern.
Source: Ince & Co / Hellenic Shipping News
If you believe an article violates your rights or the rights of others, please contact us.
|
|
Tuesday, 18 March 14
NEWCASTLE COAL EXPORT VOLUME FALLS 26.23% WEEK ON WEEK
COALspot.com: In the week ended 17 March 2014, power plant and semi-soft coking coal shipments from the port of Newcastle in Queensland, total 2 ...
Monday, 17 March 14
API 8 CFR SOUTH CHINA COAL SWAPS FOR AVERAGE Q2 14 DELIVERIES LOST 2.59% M-O-M
COALspot.com: API 8 CFR South China Coal swaps for average Q2 14 deliveries lost 2.59 percent month on month and closed at US$ 74.15 per mt as o ...
Sunday, 16 March 14
BDI DOWN ON LOW CAPESIZE ACTIVITY
COALspot.com: The freight market was slightly soft this week with BDI down by 4.28 pct week on week. The BDI closed at 1,477 points and the cape ...
Friday, 14 March 14
DRY BULK MARKET ENTERS RECOVERY MODE, ON INCREASED CAPESIZE DEMAND - NIKOS ROUSSANOGLOU, HELLENIC SHIPPING NEWS
The dry bulk market has entered and sustained higher ground as of this week, on the back on increased Capesize demand. Although the situation in ...
Friday, 14 March 14
US, THE WORLD'S SECOND LARGEST COAL PRODUCER MINED 75.3 MMST OF COAL IN FEBRUARY; DOWN 10.88% M-M
COALspot.com – United States the world’s second largest coal producer, produced approximately 18.7 million short tons (mmst) of coal ...
|
|
|
Showing 3796 to 3800 news of total 6871 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
|
| |
|
- Planning Commission, India
- Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd
- Straits Asia Resources Limited - Singapore
- Australian Coal Association
- Ministry of Finance - Indonesia
- Maheswari Brothers Coal Limited - India
- Eastern Energy - Thailand
- TeaM Sual Corporation - Philippines
- Agrawal Coal Company - India
- Vedanta Resources Plc - India
- Sree Jayajothi Cements Limited - India
- Kideco Jaya Agung - Indonesia
- Xindia Steels Limited - India
- Bukit Baiduri Energy - Indonesia
- Jorong Barutama Greston.PT - Indonesia
- Chettinad Cement Corporation Ltd - India
- Africa Commodities Group - South Africa
- OPG Power Generation Pvt Ltd - India
- Ministry of Transport, Egypt
- Indian Oil Corporation Limited
- SMG Consultants - Indonesia
- Altura Mining Limited, Indonesia
- Carbofer General Trading SA - India
- Cement Manufacturers Association - India
- Intertek Mineral Services - Indonesia
- Barasentosa Lestari - Indonesia
- Bharathi Cement Corporation - India
- Madhucon Powers Ltd - India
- Thai Mozambique Logistica
- Bhushan Steel Limited - India
- Formosa Plastics Group - Taiwan
- Bhoruka Overseas - Indonesia
- Manunggal Multi Energi - Indonesia
- Coalindo Energy - Indonesia
- GVK Power & Infra Limited - India
- Goldman Sachs - Singapore
- Krishnapatnam Port Company Ltd. - India
- Dong Bac Coal Mineral Investment Coporation - Vietnam
- VISA Power Limited - India
- Siam City Cement PLC, Thailand
- Neyveli Lignite Corporation Ltd, - India
- The University of Queensland
- GAC Shipping (India) Pvt Ltd
- Electricity Authority, New Zealand
- Chamber of Mines of South Africa
- Filglen & Citicon Mining (HK) Ltd - Hong Kong
- Therma Luzon, Inc, Philippines
- Bahari Cakrawala Sebuku - Indonesia
- CNBM International Corporation - China
- Pendopo Energi Batubara - Indonesia
- Kepco SPC Power Corporation, Philippines
- Meenaskhi Energy Private Limited - India
- IHS Mccloskey Coal Group - USA
- Indika Energy - Indonesia
- Coastal Gujarat Power Limited - India
- TNB Fuel Sdn Bhd - Malaysia
- Videocon Industries ltd - India
- Energy Link Ltd, New Zealand
- Directorate General of MIneral and Coal - Indonesia
- Miang Besar Coal Terminal - Indonesia
- Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
- SMC Global Power, Philippines
- Metalloyd Limited - United Kingdom
- Gujarat Sidhee Cement - India
- Central Java Power - Indonesia
- New Zealand Coal & Carbon
- CIMB Investment Bank - Malaysia
- Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited - India
- PetroVietnam Power Coal Import and Supply Company
- Renaissance Capital - South Africa
- GMR Energy Limited - India
- Pipit Mutiara Jaya. PT, Indonesia
- Kaltim Prima Coal - Indonesia
- Malabar Cements Ltd - India
- Global Green Power PLC Corporation, Philippines
- Antam Resourcindo - Indonesia
- Banpu Public Company Limited - Thailand
- Petrochimia International Co. Ltd.- Taiwan
- Bukit Makmur.PT - Indonesia
- Global Coal Blending Company Limited - Australia
- Orica Australia Pty. Ltd.
- India Bulls Power Limited - India
- Baramulti Group, Indonesia
- Central Electricity Authority - India
- Commonwealth Bank - Australia
- Mjunction Services Limited - India
- Grasim Industreis Ltd - India
- Vijayanagar Sugar Pvt Ltd - India
- Bayan Resources Tbk. - Indonesia
- Tata Chemicals Ltd - India
- Billiton Holdings Pty Ltd - Australia
- Sical Logistics Limited - India
- Globalindo Alam Lestari - Indonesia
- Orica Mining Services - Indonesia
- Samtan Co., Ltd - South Korea
- ICICI Bank Limited - India
- Eastern Coal Council - USA
- Borneo Indobara - Indonesia
- Aboitiz Power Corporation - Philippines
- Interocean Group of Companies - India
- Petron Corporation, Philippines
- Bukit Asam (Persero) Tbk - Indonesia
- Kumho Petrochemical, South Korea
- South Luzon Thermal Energy Corporation
- Bhatia International Limited - India
- Latin American Coal - Colombia
- ASAPP Information Group - India
- Trasteel International SA, Italy
- Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Makarim & Taira - Indonesia
- Global Business Power Corporation, Philippines
- MS Steel International - UAE
- Gujarat Mineral Development Corp Ltd - India
- Cigading International Bulk Terminal - Indonesia
- Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission - India
- Tamil Nadu electricity Board
- Wilmar Investment Holdings
- Wood Mackenzie - Singapore
- LBH Netherlands Bv - Netherlands
- Dr Ramakrishna Prasad Power Pvt Ltd - India
- Essar Steel Hazira Ltd - India
- Riau Bara Harum - Indonesia
- Energy Development Corp, Philippines
- Minerals Council of Australia
- Lanco Infratech Ltd - India
- Heidelberg Cement - Germany
- White Energy Company Limited
- Independent Power Producers Association of India
- Meralco Power Generation, Philippines
- Salva Resources Pvt Ltd - India
- Indonesian Coal Mining Association
- PTC India Limited - India
- Ministry of Mines - Canada
- Sinarmas Energy and Mining - Indonesia
- Jindal Steel & Power Ltd - India
- Thiess Contractors Indonesia
- PNOC Exploration Corporation - Philippines
- Binh Thuan Hamico - Vietnam
- Mintek Dendrill Indonesia
- Kalimantan Lumbung Energi - Indonesia
- Holcim Trading Pte Ltd - Singapore
- Jaiprakash Power Ventures ltd
- Uttam Galva Steels Limited - India
- Larsen & Toubro Limited - India
- Medco Energi Mining Internasional
- Kartika Selabumi Mining - Indonesia
- Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd - Australia
- Savvy Resources Ltd - HongKong
- Asia Pacific Energy Resources Ventures Inc, Philippines
- Indo Tambangraya Megah - Indonesia
- Alfred C Toepfer International GmbH - Germany
- Star Paper Mills Limited - India
- PowerSource Philippines DevCo
- Siam City Cement - Thailand
- International Coal Ventures Pvt Ltd - India
- IEA Clean Coal Centre - UK
- Truba Alam Manunggal Engineering.Tbk - Indonesia
- San Jose City I Power Corp, Philippines
- Ceylon Electricity Board - Sri Lanka
- The Treasury - Australian Government
- The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd
- Aditya Birla Group - India
- Attock Cement Pakistan Limited
- Economic Council, Georgia
- Marubeni Corporation - India
- Kapuas Tunggal Persada - Indonesia
- Port Waratah Coal Services - Australia
- Rio Tinto Coal - Australia
- Power Finance Corporation Ltd., India
- London Commodity Brokers - England
- Iligan Light & Power Inc, Philippines
- Kobexindo Tractors - Indoneisa
- Parry Sugars Refinery, India
- Singapore Mercantile Exchange
- Sojitz Corporation - Japan
- Timah Investasi Mineral - Indoneisa
- Sarangani Energy Corporation, Philippines
- Karaikal Port Pvt Ltd - India
- Karbindo Abesyapradhi - Indoneisa
- Standard Chartered Bank - UAE
- Merrill Lynch Commodities Europe
- Parliament of New Zealand
- Bulk Trading Sa - Switzerland
- Posco Energy - South Korea
- Simpson Spence & Young - Indonesia
- Dalmia Cement Bharat India
- Edison Trading Spa - Italy
- Romanian Commodities Exchange
- Australian Commodity Traders Exchange
- Deloitte Consulting - India
- Anglo American - United Kingdom
- Indian Energy Exchange, India
- Kohat Cement Company Ltd. - Pakistan
- Bangladesh Power Developement Board
- McConnell Dowell - Australia
- GN Power Mariveles Coal Plant, Philippines
- Sindya Power Generating Company Private Ltd
- Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence - India
- Semirara Mining Corp, Philippines
- Toyota Tsusho Corporation, Japan
- Georgia Ports Authority, United States
- European Bulk Services B.V. - Netherlands
- Mercuria Energy - Indonesia
- Asmin Koalindo Tuhup - Indonesia
- Vizag Seaport Private Limited - India
- Sakthi Sugars Limited - India
- Coal and Oil Company - UAE
- AsiaOL BioFuels Corp., Philippines
- Oldendorff Carriers - Singapore
- Price Waterhouse Coopers - Russia
- SN Aboitiz Power Inc, Philippines
- Mercator Lines Limited - India
- Indogreen Group - Indonesia
- Semirara Mining and Power Corporation, Philippines
- Ambuja Cements Ltd - India
- Ind-Barath Power Infra Limited - India
- Offshore Bulk Terminal Pte Ltd, Singapore
|
| |
| |
|
